Home| Letters| Links| RSS| About Us| Contact Us

On the Frontline

What's New

Table of Contents

Index of Authors

Index of Titles

Index of Letters

Mailing List


subscribe to our mailing list:



SECTIONS

Critique of Intelligent Design

Evolution vs. Creationism

The Art of ID Stuntmen

Faith vs Reason

Anthropic Principle

Autopsy of the Bible code

Science and Religion

Historical Notes

Counter-Apologetics

Serious Notions with a Smile

Miscellaneous

Letter Serial Correlation

Mark Perakh's Web Site

Discussion

You can read and reply to the existing discussion threads related to the article, or create a new thread:

Your name *:
Your email *:
Security question *: 13 + 14 =
Related article(s):
Subject *:
Message *:
     Length: (max.: 3000 characters)

 

Title Author Date
Does not the creationist's argument refute itself? Mayer, David Jan 04, 2009
I understand and accept the argument presented in this article. But could the creationist's argument be refuted at an even earlier stage as following?

When one writes "VALUES THAT SUPPORT LIFE", it gives the impression that the rules of life are somehow independent of the creationist's god.
However, the creationist believes that god designed not only the values but also the laws nature. This means that for ANY values god could have designed laws of nature such that life could exist for those numbers.

So when a creationist arrives to the conclusion that it was god who designed the exact values, I think it supports also the belief that god
designed the laws of nature as well (at least the god of Abrahamic religions certainly did). At that moment the creationist's argument refutes itself, since the conclusion of the argument leads to the argument being meaningless (god designed two things - numbers and laws - and could tweak one or the other, so any numbers would do). Please correct me if this is logically incorrect.

 

Title Author Date
The Fine-Tuned Universe island, Jan 04, 2009
The fallacy of arguing that because a physical constant has to be extremely precise to support life it is therefore extremely unlikely that the constant had a value that would support life.

Um, physicists don't say that it is extremely unlikely that the constant had a value that would support life because a physical constant
has to be extremely precise to support life.

Good grief.

They say that it is extremely unlikely that the constant had such an extremely precise value, because these values are totally unexpected by any natural model that we have ever been able to produce from first principles.

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0512148

This idiotic debate has caused the relevant points to be lost in creative speculation that has absolutely nothing to do with the observation that they AREN'T even talking about.

What a bunch of dorks.